TenthFleet:GDPR: Difference between revisions
m US section: cite the ~19 states with comprehensive privacy laws; note non-profit coverage (CO/OR/DE/NJ/MN) is gated by high consumer thresholds a small club never meets, plus shared deletion exceptions |
m removed from Category:Policy; added to Category:Policies; corrected Category:TenthFleet to Category:Tenth Fleet |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
California was first, but by 2026 roughly nineteen states have comprehensive consumer-privacy laws, and every one of them includes a right to delete: '''Virginia, Colorado, Connecticut, Utah, Iowa, Indiana, Tennessee, Montana, Oregon, Texas, Delaware, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Nebraska, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, and Rhode Island''', alongside California. For TRMN, two features run through nearly all of them: | California was first, but by 2026 roughly nineteen states have comprehensive consumer-privacy laws, and every one of them includes a right to delete: '''Virginia, Colorado, Connecticut, Utah, Iowa, Indiana, Tennessee, Montana, Oregon, Texas, Delaware, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Nebraska, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, and Rhode Island''', alongside California. For TRMN, two features run through nearly all of them: | ||
* '''Non-profit treatment.''' Most of these laws exempt non-profit organizations outright, just as California does. A few do reach non-profits, notably '''Colorado, Oregon, Delaware, New Jersey, and Minnesota''' (some only in narrow categories such as insurance-fraud groups). But even in those states the law only applies above high '''thresholds''' | * '''Non-profit treatment.''' Most of these laws exempt non-profit organizations outright, just as California does. A few do reach non-profits, notably '''Colorado, Oregon, Delaware, New Jersey, and Minnesota''' (some only in narrow categories such as insurance-fraud groups). But even in those states the law only applies above high '''thresholds''': typically the personal data of '''100,000 residents of that state''' in a year, dropping to 25,000 only for an organization that earns a quarter or more of its revenue from '''selling''' personal data. "Consumers" here means residents of the single state in question, so TRMN's members in any one state are a small fraction of its several-thousand worldwide membership, well under 100,000. TRMN also does not sell personal data, so the lower threshold cannot apply. It therefore falls below the applicability thresholds of these laws. | ||
* '''Deletion exceptions.''' Where any of them could apply, each carries the same kinds of exceptions California does, allowing personal data to be kept to comply with a legal obligation, to exercise or defend legal rights, for internal uses consistent with the context in which it was provided, and, in several, for public-interest or record-keeping purposes. A faithful historical archive fits comfortably within these. | * '''Deletion exceptions.''' Where any of them could apply, each carries the same kinds of exceptions California does, allowing personal data to be kept to comply with a legal obligation, to exercise or defend legal rights, for internal uses consistent with the context in which it was provided, and, in several, for public-interest or record-keeping purposes. A faithful historical archive fits comfortably within these. | ||
| Line 76: | Line 76: | ||
* [https://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy/australian-privacy-principles Australian Privacy Principles], Office of the Australian Information Commissioner | * [https://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy/australian-privacy-principles Australian Privacy Principles], Office of the Australian Information Commissioner | ||
[[Category: | [[Category:Policies]] | ||
[[Category: | [[Category:Tenth Fleet]] | ||